WEBVTT WHITE HOUSE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TOBE FOCUSED ON HEALTH CARE.INSTEAD IT'S ALL ABOUT RUSSIAAND RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016ELECTION.THE PRESIDENT'S SON, DONALDTRUMP JR.IS NOW SQUARELY IN THE MIDDLE OFTHE CONTROVERSY -- HAVINGRELEASED EMAILS ABOUT A MEETINGHE HAD IN JUNE OF 2016 WITH ARUSSIAN LAWYER OFFERINGINCRIMINATING INFORMATION ONHILLARY CLINTON.TRUMP JUNIOR PUSHED OUT THEEMAILS IN A SERIES OF TWEETSSHORTLY BEFORE THE NEW YORKTIMES WAS READY TO MAKE THEMPUBLIC.IN THE WAKE OF THE REVELATIONS,LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE BEEN WEIGHINGON TREASON, CONSPIRACY, ANDCOLLUSION.WHAT DO THOSE WORDS MEAN AND DOANY OF THEM APPLY TO WHAT WEHEARD THIS WEEK?HERE TO WALLEGAL JARGON AND THE QUESTIONSOF LAW --KATHLEEN CLARK -- A LAWPROFESSOR AT WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY, SPECIALIZING INGOVERNMENT ETHICS, LEGAL ETHICS,AND CAMPAIGN LAW.NICE TO HAVE YOU.MS. CLARK: THANK YOU FOR HAVINGME.SOLEDAD: SO EVERYONE WHO EVERWANTED TO BE A LAWYER, IS ALAWYER OR WANTS TO TALK ABOUTTHE LAW HAS BEEN DIGGING INTOALL THE NUANCE OF THIS CASEESPECIALLY AROUND THE RELEASE OFEMAILS.THE WORDS THEY ARE USING AREWORDS LIKE COLLUSION, TREASONAND CONSPIRACY.SO I WOULD LIKE TO START THERE,JUST WITH DEFINITIONS.WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OFCOLLUSION?MS. CLARK: COLLUSION IS NOT ALEGAL TERM AT ALL.WE HAVE BEEN TOSSING AROUND THATTERM FOR MONTHS NOW AND I THINKIT IS A USEFUL SUMMARY OF PEOPLEOR ORGANIZATIONS WORKINGTOGETHER TOWARD A COMMON GOABUT THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY A LEGALTERMTHERE ARE OTHER LEGAL TERMS THATARE RELEVANT HERE INCLUDINGCONSPIRACY AND AIDING ANDABETTING AND THESE ARE TERMSTHAT ARE RELEVANT AGAINST THEBACKGROUND OF OUR CAMPAIGNFINANCE LAWS THAT PROHIBITFOREIGNERS FROM CONTRIBUTING,MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS ORPROVIDING ANYTHING OF VALUE TOU.S. CAMPAIGN.SOLEDAD: PART OF WHAT SEEMS TOPLAY A ROLE IS THE ROLE OFSOLICITATION.WHEN DONALD JUNIOR RESPONDED "LOVE IT" TO WHAT WAS BEINGPITCHED TO HIM BY THE PUBLICISTAND THERE'RE MAY HAVE BEENPHONE CALL OR NOT, IT IS HARD TOTELL AT THIS MOMENT.DOES THAT COUNT AS SOLICITATION?MS. CLARK: SO SOLICITATION DOESNOT REQUIRE ANY KIND OF MAGICWORDS TO BE SAID.I THINK THAT THE EMAIL EXCHANGEIS SUGGESTIVE THAT THERE MAYHAVE BEEN SOLICITATION.I DON'T THINK THERE IS SLAM DKEVIDENCE AT THIS POINT THATDONALD TRUMP JUNIOR ENGAGED INSOLICITATION, I THINK OF THEMEETING AS EVIDENCE.THE FACT THAT THEY AGREED TO GOTO THE MEETING AND THE INFO THATTHEY HAD ABOUT THE MEETING, WHATTHE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS,AS POSSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THEYWERE FACILITATING A FOREIGNPROVISION OF SOMETHING OF VALUETO THE CAMPAIGN.BUT I WOULDN'T CALL THEIRPARTICIPATION IN THE MEETINGILLEGAL AS SUCH OR A CRIME ASSUCH.THERE IS NOT A PROHIBITION ONAMERICANS MEETING WITH RUSSIANSOR ANY FOREIGNERS.SO IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HADBEEN PART OF AN AGREEMENT, IF HEAGREED TO TAKE ACTION TO FURTHERTHE RUSSIANS' PROVISION OFSOMETHING OF VALUE TO THECAMPAIGN THEN HE HIMSELF COULD, FACE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ACONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW.SOLEDAD: CAN YOU PROSECUTE ASITTING PRESIDEN>> WELL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENTASSERTS THAT YOU CAN'T, BUT IQUESTION.AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, HOWEVER.IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT ATTORNEYGENERAL SESSIONS WOULD WANT TOBE ANY PART OF THAT, BUT OCOURSE HE HAS SAID HE WOULDRECUSE FROM THE RUSSIANINVESTIGATION SO IT MAY NOT BEUP TO HIM.INSTEAD IT WOULD BE PRESUMABLYUP TO SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER,BUT THE REGULATION UNDER WHICHHE WAS APPOINTED REQUIRES HIM TOABIDE BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENTPOLICIES AND WHILE I BELIEVE IMAY BE POSSIBLE TO INDICT APRESIDENT I DON'T THINK THIS

Legal Expert: President Could Face Legal Liability

Share

Shares

Copy Link

{copyShortcut} to copy
Link copied!

Updated: 10:00 PM EDT Jul 14, 2017

President Donald Trump returns from his visit with the French president to the continuing controversy caused by an email exchange involving his son Donald Trump, Jr. This week, Trump, Jr. released emails showing he had welcomed a meeting with a Russian lawyer who was offering damaging information on then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. As new information continues to dribble out, law makers and legal experts have been debating what this mean legally. Does this demonstrate collusion or conspiracy? Kathleen Clark, a Washington University Law Professor, sits down with Soledad O’Brien to walk through which laws apply, the questions that need to be answered and what conclusions are going too far.